Unacceptable Standards

The American military’s plan to impose gender equality on combat units just hit another roadblock.

All eight women who entered into the latest Ranger School class washed out. That’s a stunning blow for the Army’s propaganda that these women could’ve made it through the intense, two-month course designed to train the service’s best warriors.

But as with all these developments, the inevitable call for lowering standards is being voiced. According to Ranger grads contacted by the Christian Science Monitor, the grueling course needs to be changed to emphasize “leadership” rather than physical prowess. To one of the men interviewed, the standards are just about men having the ability to “thump their chests” and are not about anything important.

And, apparently, women could really benefit Ranger units.

This argument is less about gender equity than the firm belief that women can make Ranger battalions better. In modern warfare, relations with local populations are crucial, and women Rangers would provide unique value added in places such as Afghanistan or Iraq, where cultural norms often prohibit contact between male soldiers and women. Ranger School also showed women were innovative problem-solvers who offered fresh approaches in the field.

If women are such innovative thinkers, then why didn’t they figure out a way to pass Ranger School?

Whatever these guys might say, this is all about gender equity and pushing an agenda that there are no real differences between the sexes.

However, unlike most professions, combat roles involve life-or-death situations and the job is to win wars. Thus, a woman’s insufficient ability to perform could mean much more than a poorly done quarterly report. But the justification for women in combat units is just the same for why females should be in investment banking or corporate law: “it’s about the best people getting the right jobs.”

That’s a different thought process from that of the warrior who just wants the most effective fighting unit and understands that means all-male units.

You can see this dichotomy demonstrated in a January USA Today article on Ranger School’s doors opening for women.

Here’s a retired Marine general on the matter:

"The overwhelming majority of those who have experienced direct ground combat are in favor of keeping the exclusion in order to preserve the combat power of those units," said Gregory Newbold, a retired Marine Corps lieutenant general who served in the infantry.

Newbold said introducing women into the primitive fighting and living conditions of the infantry and other ground combat units would erode the units' effectiveness.

"What I'm talking about is the inevitable consequences of human dynamics," he said.

Here’s a women’s advocate on the same issue:

But Nancy Duff Campbell, co-president of the National Women's Law Center, said allowing women to compete for all jobs will ensure the military gets the best people in the right jobs.

"We think women should be permitted to compete for everything," she said.

I’m sure ISIS is quaking at the thought of our new and improved military.